Rue

Really. I think you confuse a desire for acquiring Western goods with supporting Western values.

I appreciate your point and do not get me wrong I do not mean to suggest Canada is not pulling their weight they do, but I would also agree with my friends in the CCG that the ships are too old and there are not enough of them and areNavy is ridiculously underfunded and too small and it makes our ability to engage in search and rescue patrol, patrols against drug smugglers and illegal fishing and aliens and enforcement of Northern borders all problematic and severely compromised.

And you know I would vote for you Americangal. All kidding aside we know whys he was picked. McCain had alienated the Christian fundamentalist rump of the Republican party with his tolerance of gay rights and viewing abortion as a private issue between a woman and her fdoctor/family. However that did not go down well with the fundamentalists and he had to do something drastic to bring them back. She was brought in to pander to the Christian rump and that is a big strong group of voters who have been responsible for putting Reagan and Bush in the white house. In fact some believe they are so powerful its impossible now to win an election without their support. Palin is the classic anti-abortion, Christian evangelical, NRA, Stepford wife. She is Anita Bryant reincarnated. She is Kate Smith. Me personally I find that version of what a woman should be to be something the anti-thesis of I taught my daughters. I taught them their identity was not determined by their value to a man. I taught them the best way to respect their body was to exercise control over it and not delegate that control to anyone else. This over-emphasis on her looks and gender is bullshit. Her looks and gender are irrelevant, her views are what we should be looking at. Americans should be discussing their economy and environment and medical care and foreign policy not whether Palin is good looking or not but who is kidding who, the vote will be decided on people's subjective gender and race stereotypes.

This has nothing to do with sex. She pulled the sex card to disttract from the real issue which is whether all parties running in an election should be represented on t.v. during debates and if not what criteria should be used. The problem would exist whether she was a man, woman or half way through a transgender change and she knows it. I have zero respect for her. To pull the sex card was cheap theatrical bullshit. The issue remains what criteria should be used to determine when a party should be permitted to be part of the debates. One seat in Parliament? Ten? All parties whether they have seats or not....etc. I really find it insulting to women and people as humans when someone like this pulls the sex card as a cheap stunt to get attention. For me it simply proves she has no credibility and is hiding behind her sex because she does not have the balls to go head to head with the other parties as to the issue. It was a cowardly cheap smarmy way to conduct herself. Then again this is the same Green Party that sees nothing wrong in a party that was created to discuss saving the environment having four of its candidates engage in partisan comments about the conflict in Israel-Palestine. The Green Party is supposed to be neutral to such conflicts and in fact look at all conflicts and wars as having no rights or wrongs and discuss them from the perspective of the environmental damage they do. Four of her candidates have used the Green Party as a platform to engage in deliberately one sided Middle East partisan politics and the very purpose this party was started to avoid such partisan politics has been abandon. Now her little sexist card manouver and as far as I am concerned the Green Party which I had great sympathy for as a relevant way to try provide debate on the environment has been rendered another fringe party full of people only interested in hearing themselves speak and not interested in the environment. In theory I believe she should be in on the debates. I believe as long as there is one sitting Member of Parliament, then that party should be allowed in on the debates. That said the hippocracy of Harper, Layton and Duceppe does not surprise me nor does her playing the sex card. I have always found her smarmy and insincere and simply using the Green Party to further her own ego.

Smallc you stated; "I gave you the definition of a civilization. Most native cultures - did not - talking on an objective view, meet that criteria. " But the point is and remains your definition or criteria you use for defining civilization is not objective but subjective and so any opinions you express based on such subjective criteria are just that subjective opinions and assumptions based on subjective criteria. You stated; "You seem to be fixated on religion and you seem to think that I'm some kind of bible thumper." No I do not assume you are anything other then for the purpose of my debate with you I am arguing are using culturally bias assumptions that render again in my opinion your pronouncements on who is and who is not civilized as subjective and therefore not necessarily valid unless everyone subsribes to the exact same subjective cultural values and assumptions you do. My comments go to the fact that Western society makes a habit of assuming its civilized based on many cultural assumptions which is precisely which leads to the absurd situations where people in the name of Christianity and civilization engage in genocide quoting the words of Christ as their justification or how some of us arrive at the conclusion being able to kill people more efficiently is a sign of civility or superior civil development. My point is that many of the things you may think make as advanced others could equally as argue make us less civilized. You state; "I am not, I am a Liberal by most accounts. " You have no obligation to defend yourself to me. We have an honest disagreement as to the value systems that should be used to define civilization, no more no less. I make no presumptions as to your motives or anything else. You stated; "I do believe in God, but I have no place for religion because it is just another thing that divides people. People can disagree with your point and at the same time not be an ultra right wind conservative." I appreciate your above comments. I do not think you are evil or a religious fundamentalist or anything else just someone with a different opinion then me. No more. No less. I also absolutely agree with the last sentence above. In fact you make a good arguement why I try temper classic Liberalism with classic Conservatism (Bentham, Burke) because I think classic Liberalism has a tendency to assume more quickly then classic Conservatism that there are universal standards all should be compared to which lends itself to the kind of nationalism and state nationalism at that which has people in one state assuming their vision should be imposed on others. My point remains that I am more comfortable with the approach of anthropologists when discussing and comparing civilizations and remaininb neutral and not assuming there are necessarily universal or objective standards that can be used for comparing all societies. For me personally I am loath to define such universal standards. If a have to for memy subjective standards of civility would come from looking at the amount of war and violence within a society, whether it abuses its children or vulnerable and whether it pollutes the environment it lives within. Those are my measurements and so I believe Western and for that matter Eastern cultures have failed miserably in that regard. It is hard for me to look at an aboriginal with a straight face and claim to be more civilized given the lifestyle I live. I am just trying to be candid about it. I live a lifestyle that pollutes, engages in war and violence and determines value by what material own can buy and possess. Excuse me if I do not consider such things or being able to make weapons grade plutonium or disposable diapers signs of civility. I am a baboon and I make no bones about that. The fact that I am managing to spend less and less time walking on my knuckles and have lost some fur does not change that fact.

I am going to guess and say the reference to Canada needing permission from Britain, Australia and New Zealand to become independent may have come about from someone misreading the following; http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger...ederal/1931.htm Actually may I suggest to those who are mistaking the scope and extent of the GG's actual power they first start with this web-site and; http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/monar...nadianSymbolism of the Monarchy It states and I quote; "As the monarchy holds no real power in Parliament (see above) it cannot “represent the nation” in the political or legal sense of the phrase. The nation’s legislatures, courts, and heads of government perform this political and legal representation. Instead, the monarch’s representation of the nation is social or cultural." Herte's another one that is not to difficult to follow either; http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/324/Independence.html I also found this web-site which is the republican arguement, i.e., the argument to do away with the monarchy entirely; http://www.canadian-republic.ca/history.html http://www.canadian-republic.ca/faq.html In case anyone cares, to amend the constitution requires certain procedures be followed including votes held in both the federal and provincial legislatures some requiring the unanimous agreement of all of them, some only an accumulated vote based on certain amounts from each region of Canada. In fact today's amending formula would make it impossible to pass without the approval of Quebec, Alberta or Ontario. Holding popular vote referendums may or may not be required. They would probably take place if each legislative assembly did not feel it had moral authority to proceed without one but I would think for example if the Quebec legislative assembly had a majority of members who did not agree with a proposed federall initiated constitutional amendment they would not feel the need to consult the masses through a referendum to get a second opinion unless there was a huge uproar.

You are absolutely wrong. Dead wrong. But do quote the law that says the above.

No they could not. You are trying to create a power that is not there. The GG or the Queen does not have the power to decide what is in the best interests of the people. Such an opinion must only come from the Prime Minister of the Day telling him what those best interests are. In theory the GG could force an election but that is as far as they could go. In Canada if an elected politician is corupt the GG or Queen has no legal power. There is an impeachment process and eventually there would be a reference to the Supreme Court which would make a finding that the corupt politician no longer has the legal ability to sit. Before that would happen the member would have resigned. There is ample precedent for that. The GG and Queen have no legal role in that with due respect and never have. Even the vague right to force the call of an election or chose the other elected party has been used only once and technically had the parliament wanted it could have simply called another election. It chose not to.

My response to your comments I have placed in quotation marks Whowhere; "Yes, I want to call you stupid." Well how about you start by reading what I wrote. I referred to the on-going debate of questioning whether the symbolic meaning of the GG's office is relevant or not. That was the topic I was responding to not the poster being stupid and the poster is well aware of what I was getting at and knows I am not debating their belief of the lack of meaning of the synmbol, just the practical reality that what-ever symbol it will be, someone will complain. I frankly have designed a Canadian flag base on an aboriginal design of a maple leaf that continues to change shape which I believe would be better then the current boring red Maple Leaf but then it is just that, a personal opinion and no doubt someone may find it as stupid as that dumb missile on the Newfoundland flag which ruins an otherwise nice flag design. Lol. Those are personal opinions. You know the difference between a personal opinion and a fact? Now this quote I love from you; "It is quite obvious you are ignorant to history. If the queen was inclined she could veto/quash every law and action put forward by the parliament and legislatures. The Queen's sovereign/authority over Canada is represented through the govenor general and the leftenant governor. Read the British North America Act and the 1982 constitution." Couple of things. First off if I am ignorant it would be ignorant OF not TO history. Now I seldom get pissy with people on this forum and I have admitted to Buffy my favourite poster already that I am stupid and ugly too and everyone knows I know that but you know have been a lawyer since 1982 and have a Master's degree in law and have practiced and taught law. How about you? More to the point you are absolutely and utterly wrong. Neither the Queen nor the Governor General nor a Lieutenant Governor can veto or quash any law whether it be in Britain or Canada. May I kindly suggest to you that the Queen and these titular states of Parliament only can carry out what they are told by the Prime Minister or Premier of the day. They have no independent power to do anything. You are misunderstanding what you appear to think you have read. You are giving literal meaning to some passages and unfortunately to understand how a law actually is applied you have to do more then that. In this case there are many more laws, doctrines, protocols and unwrittten protocols you will first need to understand to understand why our head of state is a symbol only and the real head of state although not so named is our Prime Minister. Now you state; "The idea Canada stems from democracy amplifies your idiocy." No it just shows you did not read what I wrote nor did you understand what I wrote. The point you are trying to get across again is misdirected by your attempt to insult me personally and more to the point your attempt to deny that the founding principles and fundamental doctrines and protocols behind the laws of Canada was to promote a constitutional monarchy and a democractic political system through a parliamentary system based on the British model has not been shown by you to be untrue. In fact all you have done is insult me with what appears to be a reference to a subjective opinion of yours you believe is "smarter" than mine. Here let me try phrase it. The idea of people electing a member of Parliament by popular vote to represent them in the legislature is called a democratic system. You may not think that make sit democratic but that is the popular usage of the concept. The system of having a monarch as the symbolic figurehead is referred to as a constitutional monarchy and in fact why Canada was originally referred to as a Dominion until the Statute of Westminister no longer applied. We were a Dominion as long as the last court of appeal was the Privy Council in Britain. Once we created our own Supreme Court of Canada we changed. Now as for your comment; "The people of Canada have never spoken for Canada." The last time I looked there had been many general elections called in both the provinces and federal government resulting in the popular election of members of the federal and provincial legislative assemblies. If you want to deny that, be my guest but making the above swseping pronouncement can't change that fact. Now you stated; "The 1982 constitution is an attestment to this fact. Was there a Canada wide referendum to the people to agree to this constitution? NO!! " You are going to have to explain the above one to me. You seem to have missed the role of the provincial and federal parliaments in the above matter and who elected both. You also seem to believe to be a democracy the popularly elected government is obliged to hold referendums. You seem to be confusing your own personal political opinions as to what you think a democratic system should feature with what a democratic system like Canada's features. The reason countries like Canada, Britain, the U.S., Australia, New Zealand or other countries similiar to ours don't always hold referendums is because it would make it impractical to run government if every single move had to be voted for. Referendums of popular votes are a political tool an elected legislative assembly may choose to engage in to bolster an arguement it is representing the popular views of its majority but the givernment of the day has no obligation to do so during its term of office and that is why if it is a majority government it seldom does and if it does its very unusual and usually over an issue that crosses political party lines. You state; "However, this constitution did bring forward a voting formula to amend the constitution. Given the influx of economic migrants and the cultural imolation inflicted on Canada since this 1982 constitution by the Conservatives and Liberals will most certainly bring about a challenge and protest as to its legitimacy before the international Court of Justice. Notably, those of Quebec." Again I have no idea what you are referring to. Quite frankly it is a bit incoherent. You start by making reference to an alleged influx of economic migrants and cultural imolation inflicted on Canada since 1982 which again has no reference so I again must assume is your subjective personal opinion. I have no idea what it is based but it clearly has nothing to do with the legal system I thought you were lecturing me on nor for that matter does it in any way support your contention that Canada is not democratic. It is illogical to suggest a nation can not be democratic because it takes in new citizens as you are arguing. You then make some reference that someone is challenging the constitution in international court. May I respectfully suggest to you no one has done such a thing and more to the point if they do which is highly unlikely it won't be for the reasons you are stating. There are in theory some legal arguements the aboriginal community could initiate and end up in international court but the Supreme Court of Canada has already made it clear it will uphold the aboriginal legal rights guaranteed in the constitution which makes going to international court a moot point. In theory if Quebec tried to seperate that could end up in international court because the federal government on behalf of the aboriginal collective and Anglophones in Quebec would argue both groups have the reight to seperate as well and that is what the Supreme Court of Canada has already hinted could happen. Now as for Quebec's legal claims that certain federal legal initiatives including the amendment of the constitution without its approval were unconstitutional in case you haven't noticed, even the seperatists of Quebec conceded the point they were legal but we all agree politically it exasperated federal-provincial tensions between Quebec and Ottawa and which is why Mr. Harper made the recent statement Quebec is a nation within another nation. As for Quebec the very reason the constitution was created as it is was to allow it to co-exist and continue to evolve side by side the Anglo component of Canada and engage in an on-going dialectic process. Canada was designed precisely to avoid the civil war of the U.S. and the rebellion that saw the U.S. come about. You stated; "Canada is not the Canada it was once was prior to British Occupation of 1759, nor the immolation post 1982. " Psst Canada did not exist prior to 1867. You sure you are an expert on Canadian history? Now your reference to the word immolation I continue to find bizarre. I am not sure who you think is killing themselves. Last time I looked no one was lighting themselves on fire. Now then, you went off on a tangent in regards to the origins of the U.S. You attempt to suggest the rebellion leading to the creation of the United States is the same political and legal situation and context Canada is today with Britain. Today if Canada wanted to end any vestige of British symbols in its governmental system it has a constitutional framework of ruels it must follow but here is a hint, Britain has zero legal say in it, and no there will be no rebellion or war. Britain does not tax us or have any control over us or our laws try as hard you might to suggest such a thing. Your continued reference to what appears to be blaming immigrants for something I do not follow. It has no rational or germaine connection to the features of the application of the legal system you claim to be discussing. You stated; "The fact is, the Queen is not a symbol she is the sovereign of Canada." No that is not a fact it is your personal opinion and your personal opinion does not change the law or how it works nor does it change the fact she is both. You stated; " The intent and spirit of the 1982 Constitution has been breached by the conservative and liberal party." That is your subjective personal opinion. You stated; "In this unity Canada's Constitution could have been amended by the people to reflect advancements to this unity." No you are wrong. You can't amend Canada's constitution by a referendum. It is far more complex then that. There are actually many other procedures and processes that would have to be followed and in fact a popular referendum is not even a component required although it might be a good political thing to do. You again state; " What has happened in place of was the 1982 constitution was used as a basis to drive Canada into a cultural immolation. Not only has Canada been driven into cultural immolation since 1982 the Conservative are giving out Canadian Citizenship in Mcdonald's happy meals. " With due respect I found the above statement which again is a subjective opinion of yours difficult to follow. I am not sure how you arrived at the conclusion taking in new citizens means a country is not democratic but such a contention is not logical as it has nothing to do with what constitutes the criteria to qualifty as a democratic state. You stated; "The conservatives are pandering to employers." Again the above is your subjective partisan political opinion. So is this one; "The conservatives are giving away Canadian jobs and watering down the voice of Canada." More to the point your above comment is illogical. If in fact the Conservatives are bringing in more new citizens that means they are bringing in more people to vote and that means increasing the voice of Canada and not taking jobs a way from Canadians, just adding to the manpower source. Seems to me you are suggesting someone who becomes a Canadian citizen is not a Canadian. Quite frankly I am not interested in how you subjectively decide is acceptable to you as a Canadian. I prefer what the law says on that matter, the same law Stephen Harper as much as I hate his haircuts and suits and politics, follows and obeys. You then ask this question; "Where's the referendum from the Canadian people to support the watering down of their voices through the conservative's puppetering?" I suppose it is in the same place as the referendum asking the Canadian people to vote on deporting anyone that does not meet your definition of Canadian. Oh Canada. Another happy citizen. Your idea that Canada stems from valueing what you think (through your vote) is a tard fallacy. Like what the Conservatives are doing to Canadian Jobseekers, the people of Canada has never spoken for the acts or decisions made on their behalf. Because the spirit and intent of the 1982 constitution has been breached by the political parties of Canada. The 1982 constitution is null and void. To make this official would involve the queen's office and a move to bring the matter before the International Court. You want to rid Canada of the Governor General? There will be a fight. The fight may not be a physical fight but it will certainly be a legal fight.

Now let me get this straight. Sarah is pro life. She cares about life. The rifle and NRA membership sort of make that a moot point. Kind of like her demanding sex not be taught in schools and then having a pregnant teenage daughter. Some things speak for themselves-her being a hippocritical moron is one of them. But she's a God fearing woman. God bless her. Oh wait. Please respect her privacy but if she wants to use her baby as a prop, well golly gee its like carrying a rifle and claiming you believe in the sanctity of life. Contradiction? No. No. Who says so. Some intellectual city folk? Bah. She is a Stepford wife on amphetamines.

My point is what you claim is a fact is not, it is your subjective personal view based on your own cultural bias. The method in which you define superiority is subjective not factual. What is "less crude"? Read that back. "Crude" is a classic example of a social construct based on one's cultural bias from the way they were brought up. What is crude in one culture would not be considered crude in another. So who decides which society's interpretation is superior? You? You are not sure what my point is? Here let me be even more simple-what you consider superior is based on what? Fact or subjective bias? That is what I ask you to challenge. My point? The same one an anthroplogist would make when examining different societies-try remain neutral to moral values and judgements. Compare for similiarities and differences but resist the urge to assume one is better then the other. All I am going to say is, the most important factors you should be looking at to define an ideal society, i.e., lack of violence and war, an ability to share and be peaceful and tolerant, seem to be basic "things" you ignore in favour of what? Gunpowder? Technology? Do you not think that much of our technology that you think makes us superior may in fact do the exact opposite? Do you think living in toxic filth makes you advanced? Do you think being able to make weapons that can kill millions makes you more advanced? Really? Is it any wonder Christians spent so many centuries engaging in genocide in the name of Jesus and moral superiority? You think your value system to determine superiority is any different then what fundamentalist terrorists do-assuming what you believe is fact and truth when it in fact is nothing more then your subjective beliefs?

Bottom line I think the selection committee in the House of Commons is a cheap rip off of the American system. Who is kidding who this committee is just a photo op for idiot MP's to pass gas and to make themselves look good. There is a system that picks these Judges and its based on a system that tries NOT to be political like the U.S. but pick Judges based on their jurisprudential competency. The Judges picked at the Supreme Court of Canada level are usually bilingual and have a solid reputation as an Appeals Judge or in rare cases like Judge Sopinka who had such a prominent role in so many important cases as a litigator or say Bora Laskin a distnguished legal academic, they are picked from Senior courts based on a protocol of trying to pick them from the regional areas of Canada, a sufficient number of Quebec Judges to handle civil law cases and of course prererably bilingual. There is almost always no contraversy as far as the legal bars are concerned when these Judges are picked. Yes there has been an attempt to deliberately look for women and one day hopefully an aboriginal Supreme Court Judge or a visible minority Judge and in that sense that would be political but not because of their partisan believes but because of the symbolic effect. I do not doubt once again Harper showed what an arrogant dictator he was just shoving this guy in but the practical reality is he can and all PM's have, and this sudden need for the cosmetic MP committee is useless. The current system chooses him or her for their legal competence first and foremost and then of course the PM is given the list and has the prerogative to choose someone he thinks is more sympathetic to his own political views. Harper is the first PM to openly try interfere politically with the appointment process and actually show contempt for the independence of the judiciary system trying to turn his own position into a Presidential one in trying to influence the Judges' decisions, but the Judges have ignored him. Our legal system is based on the British model, not the US model and so Harper's attempt to try be Presidential and try intimidate courts into making certain decisions based on politics hasn't and can not work. If a politician doesn't like a court decision the recourse is to pass new legislation as long as its not unconstitutional and you end up like dummy George Bush in the US who kept passing legislation in response to court decisions to try get around those decisions but kept repeating the same constitutional illegalities. This Judge in particular is a no brainer. They needed an Atlantic region Judge and necessity requires whenever possible they are bilingual. He was both and he has rendered solid appeal cases. No legal bar is going to be upset with the choice. The guy is competent. Now whether he has strong political views that might colour some of his decisions I do not know. I defer to Nova Scotia litigators who have been before him. Its hard to say from the kinds of cases he has done from what I have read. So in summary yah I think Harper is a rude putz, but in the end, we are no worse off. So I share your annoyance but would say in the long run it won't make a diff and me I think the Canadian way of appointing Judges is far superior to the US way and no I do not want a political circus appointing them.

Of course not. The title of head of state, Commander in Chief, etc., etc., has no power. It is purely ceremonial and symbolic and no she can not act as a military dictator and initiate anything politically. The GG controls nothing. The Prime Minister, the PM's cabinet, and the politicians elected in Parliament have the actual political power. In theory the judicial system interprets how far that power can go before it becomes illegal (unconstitutional) so the judiciary is supposed to check and balance it. The GG has no power at all. You might need to sit down with Prof. Hogg and have him explain to you the difference between ceremonial and real power. Look GG Michelle is cute but no she can't order anyone to do anything, except of course her husband to put the toilet seat down.

The GG was always intended to be a symbol of the head of state. Symbolic heads of state what ever form they are chosen to manifest themselves in cost money. The point is you call it a President, a GG, a grand poopbah whatever, its still a symbol and that is all it is a sumbol and its going to cost what-ever form it takes and quite frankly compared to other symbolic head of states its actually gives us good value for the money. The ceremonies and protocols of this symbol are supposed to provide continuity and consistency whole the government of the day changes. Its ceremonial only. So like I said if you feel you want to change the symbols of our nation-be my guest. But I like the word beaver.

This is absurd. The very manner in which you are defining civilized is one that suggests one way of life is superior to the other because of things it has the other didn't. That is absurd. The things some of you are using to assume it makes the society that has them superior does not all it does is mean that society has those things. Using things one has and the other does not to assume superiority is nonsensical. It is not logical. Superiority is not determined because some of you assume by having a thing the other party does not, it must make you better. Think of the absurdity. Well go on. Try. Oh look I have a gun. See that person over there he has a spear. That makes me superior. Why? Oh look I have gun powder and he does not. That makes you superior? Can some of you try make a serious effort to look at the way you define superiority and the assumptions you make for turning it into such a subjective assumption? You piddle paddle the word civilization about because you actually believe one society is morally superior than another because of what it has discovered. Really? Oh I see. I am civilized because I have a mind that can invent germ warfare and nuclear bombs. That makes me more civilized. Right. The toxic waste I spew out, the toxic poisons I destroy the world with and cause epidemic rates of disease with, the mass genocides I now can carry out with such ease, they make me superior? Seems to me some of you have no clue that what you assume makes you superior makes you the exact opposite but please, go to church and believe you are good people and superior to the heathen. You don't eat people, you just run over them in a car or rip them off in a business deal right? Bah.

The Governor-General like many other things in our legal system is a symbol. She has no real power. Its a symbol. Now you want to call it stupid, well to me that is no different then saying the Maple Leaf is a dumb symbol or the beaver is a dumb symbol. There are historic origins for these symbols. If you don't like them you can vote to change them. To me in a parliamentary democracy where the head of state is symbolic unlike the President of the United States you have a choice. You can have a President like in many countries, i.e., Israel, Italy, where its just a symbolic office no different thent he Governor General, or you can call it like we do the Governor General. Either way its just a symbolic office. Me I appreciate history and why our symbol for head of state is the Governor General. I think its a moot Getting your colon tied up in a knot about it is ridiculous. Its just a friggin symbol. What ever symbol we use some of you are bound to complain. That is what Canadians do complain. I think its great we have a national symbol that gets confused with a woman's private parts. Also what other country in the world has the confidence to depict themselves as a fat rodent.

O.k. cyber let me explain it. You live in the desert. Think sand. Now remember think sand. Now then, as you are thinking of sand, think uncut penis. Come now you can do it. Sand plus uncut penis. Cutting one's foreskin may seem confusing to thou, but if you had an uncut penis and lived in a climate with sand, it would make a lot of sense. Now you know all those halal and kosher dietary rules. Again they may seem a tad absurd unless of course the Maple Leaf food listeria bacteria issue reminds you of something. See back then, such dietary rules kept people alive. They were based on observing what practices made people sick. Muslims and Jews don't eat pork because it was full of worms and they could not cure the meat and store it properly in a hot climate but they could eat other flesh that they identified would not carry such worms. Muslims and Jews don't eat shellfish because they could have been filled with red tide algae which would make them toxic. Say now we all realize there is a reason one does not touch meat and then start touching other foods right? Do we need to know milk and meat would cause intestinal problems if mixed particularly in a hot climate. You know that silly beeny cap them Jews wear or that skull cap them Muslims wear? No its not to cover their bald spot well it is...but it simply stems from the fact if you come from a hot climate you soon stroke out if you don't wear a hat all the time. Some of these bizarre rituals actually were based on common sense health practices that made sense in their time. They of course lose their original context today and they can become quite wierd. For me as a Jew, I don't get the need for ultra-orthodox Jews to wear those big fur hats. I mean o.k. maybe in Russia if it was cold, you wore one. But why when its like a zillion degrees outside? Mulsims well I only have one thing to say, make up your mind. Either grow a mustache and a beard or shave it off, this beard with no mustache, no. No. No. That goes for you Amish too. Make up your damn minds. Me personally I hate anyone with a beard. I also think that bib nuns were forced to wear was and is ridiculous since they all have double chins and it just makes them choke. What is with all this black anyways. Can we not be more imaginative? By the way, Jews are not the only one who cut their skin off their penises. Most people in hot climates had this practice including Muslims and many African tribes. Nothing personal. It was based on the heat and making it easier to keep the foreskin from smelling and getting infected. Me personally I think we Jews should not eat sandwitches and drink coffee after the briss. That is barbaric. However I am told the child is drunk and feels nothing. Mine was done in the hospital. I know who did it. I am still looking for him.

Also I need to work on the fact that "he" (God) has no beard. Of course he does. He looks just like Farley Mowatt.

Putin's policies welcomed in a new cold war back in 1998 when it was decided the best way to rebuild Russia's economy was to sell military supplies to nations in conflict with Western interests and siding with Iran deliberately to destablize the gulf region and oil trade to make it more possible for Russia to sell oil to the West at prices Russia could dictate unilaterally. If Putin had been interested in a genuine alliance with the West he would not have seized control of the nation's economy and handed it over to the mob as part of an alliance to maintain totalitarian control and prevent free enterprise in that nation. He chose his bed many years ago and its not suprising to anyoen who has studied the man and what he stands for. He is a classic Stalinist. The fact that Bush and Chaney dismissed him as a weakling has only made matters worse. It has only served to incite and inflame his Stalinist temperment for the worse. They underestimated his resolve and talked to him in a patronizing manner. Dumb and dumber. The best person to have handle Putin today would be a Margaret Thatcher. This aw shucks bafoonery of Bush followed by the overplayed bellowing of Chaney just was not the way to deal with this professional hitman.

Its been part of a long standing tradition. US Armed Forces and Canadian Forces have been involved in numerous rescue missions for each other over the years when one side's unit is closer to the accident then the other and time is of the essence and depleted Canadian Coast Guard and navy capacity has led to more and more US Coast Guard interventions to rescue Canadians on the high seas. Also our municipalities and hydro companies have always helped each other with ice storms, snow storms, floods and forest fire fighting is another area we have been there for each other. A law passed last year to cut the red tape for such operations was put into place precisely to make this easier. Its a great example of what happens when countries get along. We also forgive you for Bush-Chaney, Sandra Palin, American beer. new York Yankees fans and your too sweet chocolate. We will still rescue you. Jut remember that is our ice. Keep your hands off it girl.

Such comments I find nonsensical. To suggest the people of Cambodia, or Rwanada-Burundi, or the Ukraine, or the holocaust, or Biafra, or India-Pakistan, or Biafra, or Armenia, and on and on were not innocent I find impossible to accept. To suggest civilians are not caught in wars they did not create and have no power to end is bullshit and it shows you have no clue just why it is terrorists can exploit civilians or why politicians will slaughter them. You sounded just like Charlie Manson, Idi Amin, Robert Mgabe, Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, and Mao Tse Tung all rolled into one.

It goes on daily. That is precisely what terrorists depend on as there primary tactic-getting civilians killed. It has also been used by conventional military leaders ordered by their politicians since war began. It is the most common theme of history.

You would have had more credibility if you had stated instead of the above self-righteous nonsense the following; " I agree with you." Your arrogance at presuming others who disagree with your opinioons have not taken the time to study the subject is bull. Please do not bother to assure me you have a Ph.d in Russian history either. I still find your opinion and Myata's simplistic, black and white, selective, and clearly partisan. I have yet to see Myata present a conflict with neutral analysis where he does not take sides and present one side as good and the other as evil. If you love that sort of thing good for you and you should subscribe to WWE wrestling. Same plots.

Bush showed ignorance and lack of respect to the entire world not just Canada. More to the point, I could care less what politicians have to say. I get along with Americans and have never found one to be deliberately rude or intolerant in fact just the exact opposite. When they have said stupid things they were not said deliberately. I am not in the business of negatively stereotyping Americans because I feel Bush was an idiot. Gerald Ford was a great friend to Canada. LBJ hated Pearson and physically grabbed him by the lapels and screamed at him. Diefnbaker hated Kennedy. Nixon hated Trudeau. Brian Mulroney loved Ronny and Jean Chretien and Clinton were supposedly buddies. Who the f..ck cares. What it comes down to is trade interests and no Americans or Canadians are not going to like each other if they feel the other side is being unfairly given the advantage in cross border trade. Of course after what Harper's office did he will have major problems if Obama is elected. Then again I am not sure if Obama will warm up to Dion? Could anyone with that bumbling bafoon? Actually if we were purely interested in Canadian interests, McCain would be the better fit but now that he put that one trick anti-abortion pony on his ticket who wants him elected.

Lol. Leave me out of that one! I am with AmericanWoman on this one. I believe the only reason she was put on the ticket was to win back the right wing Christian vote john McCain has alienated due to his positions on gay rights and abortion (neutral). She is a transparent attempt to woo the Christian evangelist voters whom the Republicans believe put Carter in office, then Reagan, Bush and Bush Jr. and who were not mobilized sufficiently to keep Clinton out of office. This pick has nothing to do about Hilary votes. In fact it is to win precisely the votes of people who detest everything Hilary Clinton stands for. To me Palin is an embarassement. She has zero qualifications. She is there because she is anti-abortionist and a lightening rod to try attract that vote. No more no less. It is a testament to the dumbing down of US politics when such an idiot can be put one heart beat away from such an office. Does anyone think this women can talk down Vladimir Putin or that mad man in Iran or the Chinese or other mad lunatics? Oh I know. She's tough. She told oil companies they can drill in National Parks. She sounds real tough. Ah but ignore her daughter. We are all sinners. Yoohoo if her daughter had used a god damn contraceptive we would have one less 17 year old child mother. Point is if her preachings don't work in the real world whether it be with anyone else or her daughter. But please do go on what a wonderful qualified candidate she is. I mean she is just like Ronny. A sportscaster. Pathetic. Just bloody pathetic. The ghost of Anita Bryant has been raised and returns.